Cognitive science and the black magic of brand building
As a student of cognitive science turned brand strategist, I was especially interested in an old post on Bob Hoffman’s blog, The Ad Contrarian (he refers back to it in a much more recent post, or I probably never would have noticed it), about “Salesmen & Sociologists.”
The point of the post is that “we have substantially exaggerated the power of brands. Most consumers in most categories have little or no brand loyalty.” The author goes on to say that most purchasing decisions are made based on functional differences like price and convenience.
So, as a cognitive science dork and a brand strategist, I have to say…he’s absolutely right. At least about the part I’ve mentioned here. The idea of brand loyalty as something that is complete and infallible is greatly exaggerated. (Although, just after reading that post I saw this. Funny timing.) And even if that level of loyalty was commonplace, which it’s not, it wouldn’t be easy to create without a great product.
But all of this is just common sense, right? Any reasonable person can tell you that their preference for a given brand has a limit. If the alternative is sufficiently cheaper or more convenient, of course they’ll switch (or at least try the alternative). Or, if the alternative brand is attractive for more subjective reasons, like style or perceived quality, the customer may also switch.
Brand loyalty, then, should be understood as a bias, not a rule. Our job as brand strategists (or advertising professionals, perhaps) is to encourage a bias in favor of the brands we work with. Agreed, it might be responsible for only a small fraction of the decision for or against a brand. But that’s what we’re going for—all else being equal (price, convenience, etc.), we want the customer’s bias to lead him or her to choose our brand.
Like Hoffman, I’ve never “bought anything from a sociologist.” But spend some time with a social psychologist and I’ll bet you learn a lot about the decisions you make and the opinions you form every day—including some things you didn’t even realize you were doing. Thinking that a bottle of wine tastes better because it has cork instead of a screwcap, or because it costs more. Preferring (or just remembering) the last item in a list…or maybe the last product you saw an ad for (see the recency effect). Ignoring information that doesn’t conform to the opinion you’ve already formed about something or someone (see the confirmation bias).
It’s not black magic, it’s science—and a lot of it’s common sense. But ads and brands that tap into aspects of human nature like these do have an advantage.
For example, Bob Hoffman says he prefers Heinz ketchup.
comment
I like your use of the word ‘bias’ to describe the game of brand influence-building – very much. This resonates, like with reality.
I once worked for an agency that touted itself as generating brand “belief” — and “brand liberation” (whatever that meant). It was a cult, run by cultish personalities that were so busy being frothy they didn’t really listen to what clients wanted (more business) — and they set about cult-building rather than business-building. It felt like Elmer Gantry.
There’s an awful lot of deep water bullshit thrown in the way of simply and interestingly clarifying image and value propositions, while providing and communicating alternatives to the marketplace that are better, or cheaper or more convenient. Understanding the relatively simple reasons we all switch and choose something different doesn’t take genius. Or a PhD in anthropology with time researching in the Siberian Tundra (that only makes us interesting people). It takes some dedicated observation, some curiousity and a little creativity.
I’d personally like to see a few more people capable of doing the work, and fewer “experts”.
A good one, Rob.
Please Leave a Reply
TrackBack URL :
Maybe this is less of an issue with the rise of internet shopping, but brand is important in terms of getting some initial consideration, so that you’re one of the few brands among which the functional criteria are sorted. For example, if you wanted to buy a multi-tool, you might look up Leatherman, Gerber, and Swiss Army products and choose the one that best fit your features/price criteria. But that initial decision of which products to consider would have been informed by brand.